FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 208928. July 8, 2015.]

ANDY ANG, petitioner, vs. SEVERINO PACUNIO, TERESITA P.

TORRALBA, SUSANA LOBERANES, CHRISTOPHER N.
PACUNIO, and PEDRITO P. AZARCON, represented by their
attorney-in-fact, GALILEO P. TORRALBA, respondents.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J : p

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court are the Decision 2 dated September 28, 2012 and the
Resolution 3 dated August 13, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV
No. 00992-MIN, which affirmed the Summary Judgment 4 dated September
12, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 38 (RTC)
in Civil Case No. 2003-115 with modification declaring, inter alia, the Deed of
Absolute Sale between petitioner Andy Ang (petitioner) and Felicisima Udiaan
(Udiaan) null and void.
The Facts
The instant case arose from a Complaint 5 dated March 19, 2003 for
Declaration of Nullity of Sale, Reconveyance, and Damages filed by Pedrito N.
Pacunio, Editha P. Yaba, and herein respondents Severino Pacunio, Teresita P.
Torralba, Susana Loberanes, Christopher N. Pacunio, and Pedrito P. Azarcon
(respondents) against petitioner before the RTC involving a 98,851-square
meter (sq. m.) parcel of land originally registered in Udiaan's name, as
evidenced by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. T-3593 6 (subject land). In
their Complaint, respondents alleged that they are the grandchildren and
successors-in-interest of Udiaan who died 7 on December 15, 1972 in Cagayan
de Oro City and left the subject land as inheritance to her heirs. However, on
July 12, 1993, an impostor falsely representing herself as Udiaan sold the
subject land to petitioner, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale 8 of even
date (Questioned Deed of Absolute Sale). Consequently, OCT No. T-3593 was
cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-79051 9 was issued in the
latter's name. In 1997, petitioner entered the subject land and used the same
in his livestock business. Respondents then informed petitioner that he did not
validly acquire the subject land, and thereafter, demanded for its return, but
to no avail. 10 Hence, they filed the aforesaid complaint, essentially contending
that Udiaan could not have validly sold the subject land to petitioner
considering that she was already dead for more than 20 years when the sale
occurred. 11 AScHCD

In his Answer, 12 petitioner denied respondents' allegations and

countered that: (a) at first, he bought the subject land from a person
representing herself as Udiaan who showed a community tax certificate as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 proof of identity, has in her possession OCT No. T-3593, knew the location of
the subject land, and was not afraid to face the notary public when they
executed the Questioned Deed of Absolute Sale; (b) he was initially prevented
from entering the subject land since it was being occupied by the Heirs of
Alfredo Gaccion (Heirs of Gaccion); (c) in order to buy peace, he had to "buy"
the subject land anew from the Heirs of Gaccion; (d) he was a buyer in good
faith, for value, and was without any knowledge or participation in the alleged
defects of the title thereof; and (e) respondents were never in possession of
the subject land and they never paid real property taxes over the same.
Ultimately, petitioner claimed that he was duped and swindled into buying the
subject land twice. 13
After the pre-trial conference, the parties submitted the case for
summary judgment on the basis of the documents and pleadings already
filed. The RTC then ordered the parties to simultaneously submit their
memoranda in support of their respective positions. 14
The RTC Ruling
In a Summary Judgment 15 dated September 12, 2006, the RTC ruled in
petitioner's favor and accordingly, dismissed the case for lack of merit. 16 It
found that while respondents claimed to be Udiaan's successors-in-interest
over the subject land, there is dearth of evidence proving their successional
rights to Udiaan's estate, specifically, over the subject land. As such, the RTC
concluded that respondents are not the real parties in interest to institute an
action against petitioner, warranting the dismissal of their complaint. 17
Dissatisfied, respondents appealed 18 to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 19 dated September 28, 2012, the CA affirmed with
modification the RTC ruling in that: (a) it nullified the Questioned Deed of
Absolute Sale; (b) declared valid the deed of absolute sale between petitioner
and the Heirs of Gaccion over a 3,502-sq. m. portion of the subject land; and
(c) distributed portions of the subject land to the Heirs of Gaccion and to the
children of Udiaan. 20
It agreed with the RTC's finding that respondents are not real parties in
interest to the instant case, considering that, as mere grandchildren of Udiaan,
they have no successional rights to Udiaan's estate. In this regard, the CA
ratiocinated that respondents could only succeed from said estate by right of
representation if their mother, who is one of Udiaan's children, 21 predeceased
Udiaan. However, such fact was not established. 22
This notwithstanding, the CA nullified the Questioned Deed of Absolute
Sale because it was clearly executed by a person other than Udiaan, who died
more than 20 years before such sale occurred. 23 Considering, however, that
some of Udiaan's heirs had already sold a 9,900-sq. m. portion of the subject
land to the Heirs of Gaccion, who in turn, sold a 3,502-sq. m. portion to
petitioner, the CA apportioned the subject land as follows: (a) 3,502 sq. m. to
petitioner; (b) 6,398 sq. m. to the Heirs of Gaccion; and (c) the remainder of
the subject land to Udiaan's children. 24
Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration, 25 but was denied in a
Resolution 26 dated August 13, 2013; hence, this petition.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 The Issue Before the Court
The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA
correctly declared the nullity of the Questioned Deed of Absolute Sale and
distributed portions of the subject land to different parties, among others,
despite ruling that respondents are not real parties in interest to the instant
case.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court lays down the definition of a real
party in interest as follows:
SEC. 2. Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the party
who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the
party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise provided by law
or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the
name of the real party in interest.
The rule on real parties in interest has two (2) requirements, namely:
(a) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and
(b) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.
Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or
an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as
distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved. One having no
material interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in
an action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is
dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action. 27 In Spouses Oco v.
Limbaring, 28 the Court expounded on the purpose of this rule, to wit:
Necessarily, the purposes of this provision are 1) to prevent the
prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or interest in
the case; 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the
one to prosecute the action; 3) to avoid multiplicity of suits; and 4)
discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to
public policy. 29
In the instant case, respondents claim to be the successors-in-interest of
the subject land just because they are Udiaan's grandchildren. Under the law,
however, respondents will only be deemed to have a material interest over
the subject land — and the rest of Udiaan's estate for that matter — if the
right of representation provided under Article 970, 30 in relation to Article 982,
31 of the Civil Code is available to them. In this situation, representatives will
be called to the succession by the law and not by the person represented; and
the representative does not succeed the person represented but the one
whom the person represented would have succeeded. 32 AcICHD

For such right to be available to respondents, they would have to show

first that their mother: (a) predeceased Udiaan; (b) is incapacitated to inherit;
or (c) was disinherited, if Udiaan died testate. 33 However, as correctly pointed
out by the CA, nothing in the records would show that the right of
representation is available to respondents. Hence, the RTC and the CA
correctly found that respondents are not real parties in interest to the instant
case. It is well-settled that factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the
CA, are entitled to great weight and respect by the Court and are deemed final
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record, 34 as in this case.
Having established that respondents are not the real parties in interest
to the instant suit, the proper course of action was for the CA to merely affirm
the RTC's dismissal of their complaint. It therefore erred in proceeding to
resolve the other substantive issues of the case and granting one of the
principal reliefs sought by respondents, which is the declaration of the nullity
of the Questioned Deed of Absolute Sale. 35 In the same vein, the CA erred in
awarding portions of the subject land to various non-parties to the case, such
as the Heirs of Gaccion and Udiaan's children. Basic is the rule that no relief
can be extended in a judgment to a stranger or one who is not a party to a
case. 36
In sum, the CA transgressed prevailing law and jurisprudence in
resolving the substantive issues of the instant case despite the fact that
respondents are not real parties in interest to the same. Necessarily, a
reinstatement of the RTC ruling is in order.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision
dated September 28, 2012 and the Resolution dated August 13, 2013 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 00992-MIN are hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Summary Judgment dated September 12, 2006
of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 38 in Civil Case No.
2003-115 is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Perez, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 10-31.
2. Id. at 34-51. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with
Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
3. Id. at 52-54. Penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja with Associate Justices
Renato C. Francisco and Oscar V. Badelles concurring.

4. Id. at 55-66. Penned by Judge Maximo G.W. Paderanga.

5. With Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction; records, pp. 3-8.

6. Id. at 9-10.
7. See Certificate of Death; id. at 13, including dorsal portion.

8. Id. at 11.
9. Id. at 12, including dorsal portion.
10. See id. at 3-5.

11. See id. at 5.

12. Id. at 19-24.

13. See id. at 21-22.

14. Rollo, p. 40.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 15. Id. at 55-66.
16. Id. at 66.
17. See id. at 63-64.

18. See Brief for the Appellants dated February 12, 2007; CA rollo, pp. 7-23.
19. Rollo, pp. 34-51.

20. See id. at 50-51.

21. Udiaan had [six (6)] children from her first marriage, namely: Ricardo, Rosita,
Francisco, Norma, Marcelo, and Encarnacion. Encarnacion is the mother of
respondents. See id. at 35.
22. See id. at 41-43.

23. See id. at 43-46.

24. See id. at 46-51.

25. See motion for reconsideration dated October 25, 2012; CA rollo, pp. 81-85.
26. Rollo, pp. 52-54.

27. Goco v. CA, 631 Phil. 394, 403 (2010).

28. 516 Phil. 691 (2006).
29. Id. at 699.

30. Article 970 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 970. Representation is a right created by fiction of law, by virtue of which the
representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person
represented, and acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were
living or if he could have inherited.
31. Article 982 of the Civil Code reads:
Art. 982. The grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit by right of
representation, and if any one of them should have died, leaving several
heirs, the portion pertaining to him shall be divided among the latter in equal
portions.
32. See Article 971 of the Civil Code.

33. See Paras, Edgardo L., Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. III, Sixteenth
Edition (2008), p. 468.

34. Co v. Yeung, G.R. No. 212705, September 10, 2014, 735 SCRA 66, 735 SCRA 66,
71, citing Guevarra v. People, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014, 715 SCRA
384, 394-95.

35. See records, pp. 6-7.

36. Liga v. Allegro Resources Corp., 595 Phil. 903, 911 (2008).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com